Vomiting After Eating Chicken, 2cm Wire Lodged in Throat... No Liability for Chicken Company? [Choi Seokjin's Law & Biz]

Civil and Criminal Lawsuits Filed by the Headquarters

Suing the Franchisee After Losing to the Headquarters in Court

Holding Franchise Headquarters Legally Accountable

About two years ago, an incident occurred in which a wire from a piece of chicken became lodged in the posterior pharyngeal wall (the back of the throat) while eating chicken from a well-known domestic brand.

After settlement negotiations between the victim and the chicken company broke down, the victim was subjected to both a civil lawsuit and a criminal complaint from the company. To make matters worse, the court ruled that the company was not liable for damages.

Photo of wire attached to the post uploaded by Mr. A on the community.

The victim, who suffered an accident that could have been life-threatening, has not yet received any compensation for medical expenses and is now faced with covering the legal costs of the opposing party as well.

Wire from Chicken Lodged in Throat

On the evening of March 31, 2024, Mr. A, who lives in Incheon, visited a nearby chicken restaurant with his husband and their ten-year-old son. It was a 60 Chicken franchise, which emphasizes hygiene by claiming to fry only 60 chickens each day using fresh oil.

The family, who bought their son's favorite boneless chicken to go, sat down at the dinner table at home and began eating. Shortly after, Mr. A started to sweat and vomit while eating the chicken. Alarmed, Mr. A's husband called 119, and emergency responders arrived. Mr. A, complaining of a foreign body sensation and pain in the throat, asked to be taken immediately to the hospital emergency room. However, due to a medical crisis at the time, not even major hospitals had available doctors, and Mr. A, who was waiting in the ambulance, had no choice but to return home.

The next morning, Mr. A visited an otolaryngologist and received shocking news from the doctor: something thin and sharp was lodged in the posterior pharyngeal wall, which is the passage leading to the esophagus. An endoscopic procedure revealed a 2-centimeter-long wire embedded in the throat.

The doctor warned, "If the area where the wire was lodged becomes severely inflamed or eroded, or if an esophageal perforation occurs, it could be life-threatening," urging extreme caution. Mr. A's first thought was, "What if my ten-year-old son had eaten it?" Due to the shock of the incident, Mr. A had to undergo psychiatric treatment for anxiety, depression, and insomnia of moderate to severe intensity.

The appearance of the posterior pharyngeal wall before and after wire removal, attached to Mr. A's hospital medical records.

Settlement Falls Through After "Formal Apology"

Since the restaurant that sold the problematic chicken opened in the afternoon, Mr. A's husband first posted a summary of the incident on the 60 Chicken website message board, including endoscopy photos taken at the hospital and the 119 emergency response record.

After posting, an employee from Jangsfood Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as headquarters), which operates the 60 Chicken franchise, contacted them, and both the headquarters CS team leader and the franchise business team chief visited. Afterwards, Mr. A and headquarters representatives met three times.

Mr. A recalled that after a single initial apology, the headquarters staff repeatedly asked for the wire as evidence. On the third visit, they were accompanied by a law firm attorney who serves as a consultant for the headquarters. The attorney claimed, "Since the chicken was taken to go, there is a high probability the wire entered at home," and, "There may be suspicious customers," which made Mr. A feel as though they were being treated like a blackmailer seeking compensation.

Mr. A showed the wire to the headquarters staff, allowed them to touch it, and take photos, but refused to hand it over. Mr. A explained that the only piece of evidence could be lost if given up, and it was difficult to participate in an investigation due to employment obligations at the time.

The headquarters staff asked Mr. A for the desired settlement amount, to which Mr. A replied 10 million won. Rather than responding to the requested amount, the headquarters staff continued to insist they needed to collect the wire for an investigation.

The headquarters maintains that they could not proceed with a settlement because Mr. A refused to provide the wire for an epidemiological investigation. A headquarters representative said, "In order to pay the not-insignificant sum of 10 million won, the company needs a basis for the expenditure, and an epidemiological investigation was absolutely necessary. As Mr. A refused to provide the wire, it was not possible to continue with settlement negotiations," adding, "The civil lawsuit was an unavoidable measure to protect the company and franchisees."

Nevertheless, the headquarters stated they were willing to pay for Mr. A's medical expenses and refund the cost of the chicken even without an epidemiological investigation, and requested Mr. A's bank account information. However, as the situation deteriorated, even the medical expenses have not been paid nearly two years later.

From Civil Lawsuit to Criminal Complaint

With settlement negotiations broken down, the conflict between the two sides deepened. In a phone call with the headquarters CS team leader, Mr. A protested the attorney's attitude and expressed an intention to make a public interest report to the media if no settlement was reached. The attorney for the headquarters called Mr. A and stated, "There will be no settlement without handing over the wire," and warned of impending legal action. The very next day, the headquarters filed a lawsuit with the court seeking confirmation that they were not liable for damages.

A few days later, Mr. A posted about the incident and the headquarters' response on message boards such as Bobaedream and Nate Pann, seeking help. Furthermore, the franchisee's claim for food liability insurance was withdrawn, citing the headquarters' ongoing lawsuit.

The headquarters also filed a police complaint against Mr. A for defamation by spreading false information online under the Information and Communications Network Act. However, in October of last year, the police investigating Mr. A's case decided not to refer the case for prosecution. They determined that some posts were merely expressions of opinion, and even fact-based posts were not false, nor did Mr. A write the posts with the intention of slander, but rather for the public interest. Therefore, the elements of a crime were not established.

Why Did the Court Side with the Headquarters?

However, this past January, the court ruled in favor of the headquarters' main lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-liability for damages, while dismissing Mr. A's counterclaim for damages. The court acknowledged that Mr. A had a wire lodged in their throat while eating chicken, but did not find the headquarters liable for damages.

The court relied on several points: ▲ Mr. A called 119 just 39 minutes after purchasing the chicken; ▲ It is difficult to imagine or conceive of a situation during everyday life where a wire-like object could enter the mouth and lodge in the posterior pharyngeal wall; ▲ The investigative authorities decided not to prosecute Mr. A for defamation regarding the posts. Based on these factors, the court accepted that the wire was indeed present in the chicken Mr. A ate.

However, the court did not recognize the headquarters' liability for damages. Under franchise law, the headquarters and franchisees are considered separate, independent business entities, which worked against Mr. A.

Regarding tort liability, the court stated that for the headquarters to be held vicariously liable, there must be an employer-employee relationship with the franchisee. However, the headquarters and franchisees are equal legal entities, and the headquarters does not have a relationship of command or supervision over the franchisees.

Moreover, for vicarious liability to apply, the franchisee must have committed a tort. In this case, it was not established whether the wire was mixed in during the cooking process, or whether it was introduced during the processing or distribution of ingredients provided by the headquarters. Therefore, the franchisee's tort was not recognized.

Mr. A's side also argued that the headquarters should be held liable as a name lender under commercial law or under the Product Liability Act, but all such arguments were rejected.

"Headquarters Should Be Held Jointly Liable for Tort"

A lawyer who previously served as a senior judge commented, "This is a case where it would have been better to sue both the headquarters and the franchisee as co-defendants from the beginning. Even in joint tort cases, while there is no guarantee under precedent that liability will always be recognized for each party's negligence, at least the argument could have been made that the accident resulted from the negligence of either the headquarters or the franchisee."

Hyun Minseok, an attorney at Lawfirm YK who won a final victory on behalf of Pizza Hut franchisees in a franchise fee lawsuit against the Pizza Hut headquarters, said, "From the victim's perspective, the most certain method would have been to file a damages claim against the franchisee as the defendant for breach of contract. However, because Mr. A filed a counterclaim in response to the headquarters' main lawsuit, there was an issue in that the franchisee could not be added as a defendant."

Attorney Hyun further explained, "In franchise cases, unlike contracting or delegating relationships, it is difficult to recognize vicarious liability, and there is some room to argue that Article 760(2) of the Civil Code (joint tortfeasors of unknown identity) should apply. However, the Supreme Court significantly limits the application of this article, stating that negligence must be recognized for both the headquarters and the franchisee. As a result, it seems difficult in practice to hold the headquarters jointly liable as a tortfeasor under Article 760."

Attorney Hyun also commented, "Given the purpose of the tort damages system, which is the fair and reasonable distribution of losses in society, and the fact that the headquarters profits from letting franchisees sell products under its brand name, it would be reasonable, in light of the intent behind Article 760(2) of the Civil Code, to recognize at least joint tort liability for unknown tortfeasors on the part of the headquarters."

Victim A in the 60 Chicken 'Wire Contamination' Incident.

Mr. A stated, "Consumers buy chicken not because of the individual franchisee, but because they trust the brand. The headquarters wields strong control through its exclusive right to supply ingredients, but does not take responsibility when accidents occur. This distorted structure must be corrected by law," adding, "Laws should be enacted to ensure the headquarters and franchisee are jointly liable for food safety incidents, and legal safeguards must be established to prevent the headquarters from abusing its financial power to silence victims through 'strategic lawsuits against public participation' (SLAPPs)."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.